President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.

Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.

This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.

I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.

Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.

So what should the Democrats do?

One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.

Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.

But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.

Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.

Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.

In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.

What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.

Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.

It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.

this from the man who is reduced to being a "guest" on Air America... I go over to the NYTimes at least once a day to post to him and Dowd just for a BIG OLE LAUGH....if you saw him and OReilly on Russerts show that time, he was a wussy, scared, hate filled, shaking moron.... nothing else...

5
posted on 11/05/2004 6:20:10 AM PST
by ArmyBratCutie
("Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:soap, ballot, jury, ammo in this order!")

The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.

So....how would the math add up if the numbers aren't there? Is he saying an enormous bloc, the majority who love Democrats didn't vote? Again, I don't think the numbers tell that story. Sounds a lot like whining to me.

This is the same foul mouthed rhetoric the left spewed when Reagan was in office. They bad-mouthed Reagan about everything from his age to his jelly beans. Now he's one of the most revered Presidents we've had in the last 100 years (in my book ever). The point was Reagan did accomplish something and I think if we give it time, GWB will accomplish a lot too. Can't wait to see his results.

FDR was a socialist. Any "programs" he put in place SHOULD be scrutinized and over turned if they are more of a problem than a cure. Most notably, Socialist Insecurity. Shrillery's Euro style Medicare scam should go away as well. As for the scrubbing of all religion from public life, that must stop. Freedom OF religion is not Freedom FROM religion.

However, this is not a mandate for censorship and Mrs. Grundy-esque policy making either.

16
posted on 11/05/2004 6:23:45 AM PST
by Dead Corpse
(My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)

Dear Mr Okkrent As public editor of the New York Times, I hope you are in a position to urge that Mr Krugman be kept on life support until a suitable brain donor can be found. You have no idea how many conservatives find Mr Krugman's writings to be invaluable to our cause. Sincerely, Compassionate Blogger

"Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism."

These libs really do think that we are a bunch of backwards, snaggle-toothed, inbred rednecks that can only think about "keepin' down tha black man", don't they? (Never mind that they are the party of the KKK, and still keep sending back Byrd to the senate.)

Krugman is the personification of what's wrong with these people. "A coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is"? Some how this sounds bass ackwards to reality. Terrance is looking into the pewter pot and seeing the world as the world is not.

May the dems forever chase where there are none to persue. May their heads be comfortably deposited where the sun don't shine and stay there. They need to go the way of the Dodo bird.Hope no one suggests that the EPA declare them an endangered specie...

31
posted on 11/05/2004 6:26:40 AM PST
by Adrastus
(I am locked and loaded with a clear field of fire.)

Having read the reactions of the LW MSM and the LW moonbats I am deeply concerned that the way democrats and liberals shall attack Bush over the next 4 years is by focusing on religion.

I sense their body language and the not no veiled hysteria over the religious right.

I am not a religious person but understand and respect those for whom religion is a vital part of their being and life. I understand the need for a separation between church and state. Personally I don't think Bush has gone over the line expressing his faith. He is comfortable with his faith, and the Bush haters are uncomfortable with their lack of faith or their own insecurities.

The left also mistakes the overwhelming rejection of gay marriage as something only white evangelicals support. But the left will mistakenly attack those same white evangelicals over the next 4 years with a ferocity that I fear will make the attacks on bush the last 4 years look tame.

With fools like Krugman shilling for them the Democrats will lose elections far into the future. As conservatives, we shouldn't even pay any attention to them. They will self-destruct with no help from us.

It worries me that there is not one conservative on the horizon that we can tap for our candidate in 2008. That is what we need to work on: making the Republican Party more conservative, not less

Thank you for giving me a good, hearty laugh with that vile, wretched, vomitous diatribe you call an editorial! You are a pathetic shred of human debris and I hope this crushing Republican victory didn't harm your ego too much! Keep the articles coming! They make excellent kindling.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.